Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

FRANK TUREK & THE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARING FACETIME (and why it matters) First, the facts: You can clearly see Dan Flood's arm & bracelet on Frank Turek's phone screen. It's not possible that it is a reflection nor can it be direct filming from Frank's phone, which eliminates FaceTime. The...

BasedSamParker's profile picture

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

144,376 subscribers

126,460 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Dan Flood's arm & bracelet are definitively visible on Frank Turek's phone screen right before Charlie is k*lled. 1. Frank was behind Dan, so it can't be a reflection. 2. Frank's phone was not pointed at Dan Flood, so it's not direct video recording by Frank's phone. 3. The orientation of Dan Flood's arm & bracelet on the phone screen is backwards from Frank's perspective, again suggesting it's not directly filming. The only explanation I'm aware of is that Frank was streaming a video feed from a different source & angle. I think it was most likely from a drone, but I'm open to other theories. This is not an accusation of guilt or wrongdoing by Frank. Watching a separate video feed isn't a crime, and I'm not alleging he committed one. But, since he claimed to be FaceTiming, which doesn't appear to be the case, I think it needs to be explained. If there is separate video footage, who has it? What else does it show? Were there indeed drones? I think these questions deserve answers.
4:48

Dan Flood's arm & bracelet are definitively visible on Frank Turek's phone screen right before Charlie is k*lled. 1. Frank was behind Dan, so it can't be a reflection. 2. Frank's phone was not pointed at Dan Flood, so it's not direct video recording by Frank's phone. 3. The orientation of Dan Flood's arm & bracelet on the phone screen is backwards from Frank's perspective, again suggesting it's not directly filming. The only explanation I'm aware of is that Frank was streaming a video feed from a different source & angle. I think it was most likely from a drone, but I'm open to other theories. This is not an accusation of guilt or wrongdoing by Frank. Watching a separate video feed isn't a crime, and I'm not alleging he committed one. But, since he claimed to be FaceTiming, which doesn't appear to be the case, I think it needs to be explained. If there is separate video footage, who has it? What else does it show? Were there indeed drones? I think these questions deserve answers.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

118,485 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🚨QUESTION: Frank Turek SPEAKS OUT At UVU Yesterday And Again Says He Was Facetiming His Kids—Why Won't Frank Turek Release The FACETIME Video and Metadata Proving He Was Actually On That Call?🤔 Listen to this unbelievable audio of Frank Turek speaking at UVU. He just opened up a massive hole in his own story and made a jaw-dropping statement on the very campus where Charlie was taken out. Turek again states that at the exact moment the shot rang out, he had his phone out. He then tells the crowd verbatim: "I actually had my phone out because I was signaling the shooter." Was just a joke or a low key admission? WHERE IS THE VIDEO, FRANK? Turek has repeatedly used the excuse that he had his phone out because he was FaceTiming his wife and kids when the tragedy happened. Okay, Frank. If you were actively holding your phone up and FaceTiming your family at the exact second the shot rang out... where is the video? FaceTime calls can be recorded, and the metadata of the call log would prove exactly when the call started, who answered, and how long it lasted. If there is nothing to hide, release the video or the digital logs. Let the public see the raw, unedited data from your phone at that exact moment. Admitting your phone was out and active, while there are legitimate questions about whether you were actually watching a live drone feed—what you explicitly referred to as "signaling the shooter"—and then refusing to produce the video evidence is beyond suspicious. Release the tape, Frank Turek . What are you hiding? 🇺🇸⚓️
2:24

🚨QUESTION: Frank Turek SPEAKS OUT At UVU Yesterday And Again Says He Was Facetiming His Kids—Why Won't Frank Turek Release The FACETIME Video and Metadata Proving He Was Actually On That Call?🤔 Listen to this unbelievable audio of Frank Turek speaking at UVU. He just opened up a massive hole in his own story and made a jaw-dropping statement on the very campus where Charlie was taken out. Turek again states that at the exact moment the shot rang out, he had his phone out. He then tells the crowd verbatim: "I actually had my phone out because I was signaling the shooter." Was just a joke or a low key admission? WHERE IS THE VIDEO, FRANK? Turek has repeatedly used the excuse that he had his phone out because he was FaceTiming his wife and kids when the tragedy happened. Okay, Frank. If you were actively holding your phone up and FaceTiming your family at the exact second the shot rang out... where is the video? FaceTime calls can be recorded, and the metadata of the call log would prove exactly when the call started, who answered, and how long it lasted. If there is nothing to hide, release the video or the digital logs. Let the public see the raw, unedited data from your phone at that exact moment. Admitting your phone was out and active, while there are legitimate questions about whether you were actually watching a live drone feed—what you explicitly referred to as "signaling the shooter"—and then refusing to produce the video evidence is beyond suspicious. Release the tape, Frank Turek . What are you hiding? 🇺🇸⚓️

Project Constitution

29,297 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

UPDATE : Many in the comments are saying that it's not Andrew Tate who is trying to hand the mobile phone to his bodyguard but rather the US Marshal who was handcuffing him. This is not true and unrealistic. First of all look at the slow downed video it is clear that Andrew Tate was holding the phone and was going to put it in his pocket whilst the officer pulled him and started handcuffing him, a moment later Andrew Tate tried to give the phone to his bodyguard instead but his bodyguard did not flinch and the phone dropped on the floor. Also look at the hands, Andrew Tate had no watch on his left hand, whilst the officer clearly had a black watch on. The hand trying to give the phone to the bodyguard clearly had no watch on, further proving that it was Andrew Tate who handed him the phone. The attention of the US Marshal was obviously to handcuff him and not to get the phone at that moment. The person picking up the phone is also obviously a US Marshal and not a member of Tate's entourage because moments before he could be seen telling his bodyguards to move back to allow the arrest to proceed snoothly.
0:30

UPDATE : Many in the comments are saying that it's not Andrew Tate who is trying to hand the mobile phone to his bodyguard but rather the US Marshal who was handcuffing him. This is not true and unrealistic. First of all look at the slow downed video it is clear that Andrew Tate was holding the phone and was going to put it in his pocket whilst the officer pulled him and started handcuffing him, a moment later Andrew Tate tried to give the phone to his bodyguard instead but his bodyguard did not flinch and the phone dropped on the floor. Also look at the hands, Andrew Tate had no watch on his left hand, whilst the officer clearly had a black watch on. The hand trying to give the phone to the bodyguard clearly had no watch on, further proving that it was Andrew Tate who handed him the phone. The attention of the US Marshal was obviously to handcuff him and not to get the phone at that moment. The person picking up the phone is also obviously a US Marshal and not a member of Tate's entourage because moments before he could be seen telling his bodyguards to move back to allow the arrest to proceed snoothly.

Caffe' Satoshi

211,493 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Here is video of Rory's full quotes on Bryson and the ruling. On the actual penalty: "I think there's no doubt that he improved the line of his backswing. Again, it's like, whether it was careless or whether it was intentional, I don't think it matters. Hopefully it was careless, but I think the two-shot penalty was justified for sure." Added this on everything that played out after the round: "I won't pretend to be up here and defend Bryson. I'm not particularly fond of him. I think a lot of it's performative. I think a lot of it's for attention. "To hold the tournament hostage like that, and to have all of us, players, volunteers, everyone waiting on him to depart, I didn't feel like it was a great look." When asked if he thinks Bryson knew what he was doing: "I'm not in his mind. I'm not in his -- but it didn't look good."
2:12

Here is video of Rory's full quotes on Bryson and the ruling. On the actual penalty: "I think there's no doubt that he improved the line of his backswing. Again, it's like, whether it was careless or whether it was intentional, I don't think it matters. Hopefully it was careless, but I think the two-shot penalty was justified for sure." Added this on everything that played out after the round: "I won't pretend to be up here and defend Bryson. I'm not particularly fond of him. I think a lot of it's performative. I think a lot of it's for attention. "To hold the tournament hostage like that, and to have all of us, players, volunteers, everyone waiting on him to depart, I didn't feel like it was a great look." When asked if he thinks Bryson knew what he was doing: "I'm not in his mind. I'm not in his -- but it didn't look good."

Kyle Porter

524,264 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Firstly as "The producer" of the Charlie Kirk show and not a TPUSA events employee why was Blake Neff even at the UVU campus stop? He claims to be working on the likely questions that Charlie might come up against and Mormon talking points but that's not his job.. what would he know that Charlie already didn't? Why would Charlie need his help? Danny Phillip and Nate Walker are meant to be the strategic planning team so why was he there? The excuses he gave for not knowing where he went or where he was after landing at SLC is suspicious enough, He can't remember who he rode with, what security team members were with him or Charlie. He went "somewhere"??? Blake Neff you created suspicion by not being transparent, you created doubt by offering up answers that makes no sense. Who are you on the phone with at the event? Who was watching the Livestream? Who else was on the plane when you landed at SLC? Who did Tyler Robinson meet with from TPUSA? You claim to know who it was and you know they did nothing wrong?? Was it you Blake Neff ? If it wasn't you how do you know? I'm giving you the opportunity to come back and explain politely.🙏 please. Bring your friends 😉 to moderate.
1:39

Firstly as "The producer" of the Charlie Kirk show and not a TPUSA events employee why was Blake Neff even at the UVU campus stop? He claims to be working on the likely questions that Charlie might come up against and Mormon talking points but that's not his job.. what would he know that Charlie already didn't? Why would Charlie need his help? Danny Phillip and Nate Walker are meant to be the strategic planning team so why was he there? The excuses he gave for not knowing where he went or where he was after landing at SLC is suspicious enough, He can't remember who he rode with, what security team members were with him or Charlie. He went "somewhere"??? Blake Neff you created suspicion by not being transparent, you created doubt by offering up answers that makes no sense. Who are you on the phone with at the event? Who was watching the Livestream? Who else was on the plane when you landed at SLC? Who did Tyler Robinson meet with from TPUSA? You claim to know who it was and you know they did nothing wrong?? Was it you Blake Neff ? If it wasn't you how do you know? I'm giving you the opportunity to come back and explain politely.🙏 please. Bring your friends 😉 to moderate.

Muppet Masher

21,747 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Reporter: The case against Letitia James was investigated for five months and the handpicked attorney could not find any evidence that she committed a crime so is the president saying here does it matter if there is a crime, he just wants his political enemies to be charged?
1:26

Reporter: The case against Letitia James was investigated for five months and the handpicked attorney could not find any evidence that she committed a crime so is the president saying here does it matter if there is a crime, he just wants his political enemies to be charged?

Acyn

672,297 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

💬: What raises suspicion of surveillance is this: in Dani’s case, it was said that her side had already received a formal legal notice two weeks earlier. The notice basically stated that if certain matters were not explained, the contract would be terminated. What’s most shocking is that, according to reports, one of the main issues raised was why a parent had replaced a phone after losing it. The implication seemed to be that the parent changed the phone in order to destroy evidence that might have been on it. You can sit there and spin your own baseless theories like that if you want, but if the phone hadn’t been replaced, were you planning to demand it and run forensic analysis on it? Even if you asked for the phone, just like President Lee Jae-myung has said before, you are not an investigative authority or a law enforcement agency. You have no right to demand a phone, especially a parent’s phone. When I heard this from a tip-off, I honestly found it terrifying.
0:26

💬: What raises suspicion of surveillance is this: in Dani’s case, it was said that her side had already received a formal legal notice two weeks earlier. The notice basically stated that if certain matters were not explained, the contract would be terminated. What’s most shocking is that, according to reports, one of the main issues raised was why a parent had replaced a phone after losing it. The implication seemed to be that the parent changed the phone in order to destroy evidence that might have been on it. You can sit there and spin your own baseless theories like that if you want, but if the phone hadn’t been replaced, were you planning to demand it and run forensic analysis on it? Even if you asked for the phone, just like President Lee Jae-myung has said before, you are not an investigative authority or a law enforcement agency. You have no right to demand a phone, especially a parent’s phone. When I heard this from a tip-off, I honestly found it terrifying.

1tokki

293,847 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

‼️EXPOSED: Frank Turek Just Got CAUGHT In A Massive LIE About What Happened AFTER Charlie Kirk Was Shot 👀 Frank Turek told Jack Hibbs that he called him from the hospital after they dropped Charlie off. But when Frank Turek spoke to Megan Kelly, he told a completely different story. He said he was FaceTiming his wife and son during the event. When the shots rang out, he instinctively put the phone in his back pocket and left it on. He said he didn’t even realize it was still going until he got to the hotel later that night — and they were still on the line when he pulled the phone out. So which one is it? Did he call Jack Hibbs from the hospital… or was his phone stuck in his pocket on FaceTime the entire time until he reached the hotel? Both stories can’t be true. Either Frank Turek is lying, or both versions are lies. This is the same pattern we’ve seen from day one — constant contradictions, gaslighting, and changing stories. Which is CORRECT Frank Turek? FOLLOW Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯 and share this. The lies are stacking up. ⚠️My channel is under coordinated attack to thwart my investigation. If you believe in independent journalism and want me to continue exposing these frauds then DONATE Here 👉🔗
3:25

‼️EXPOSED: Frank Turek Just Got CAUGHT In A Massive LIE About What Happened AFTER Charlie Kirk Was Shot 👀 Frank Turek told Jack Hibbs that he called him from the hospital after they dropped Charlie off. But when Frank Turek spoke to Megan Kelly, he told a completely different story. He said he was FaceTiming his wife and son during the event. When the shots rang out, he instinctively put the phone in his back pocket and left it on. He said he didn’t even realize it was still going until he got to the hotel later that night — and they were still on the line when he pulled the phone out. So which one is it? Did he call Jack Hibbs from the hospital… or was his phone stuck in his pocket on FaceTime the entire time until he reached the hotel? Both stories can’t be true. Either Frank Turek is lying, or both versions are lies. This is the same pattern we’ve seen from day one — constant contradictions, gaslighting, and changing stories. Which is CORRECT Frank Turek? FOLLOW Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯 and share this. The lies are stacking up. ⚠️My channel is under coordinated attack to thwart my investigation. If you believe in independent journalism and want me to continue exposing these frauds then DONATE Here 👉🔗

Project Constitution

56,141 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

US Attorney Jeanine Pirro on case against alleged press dinner gunman: "We have a lot of evidence that indicates his intent... whether it was, you know, following what the president was doing, where he was going, to the day of the of the event at the hotel. Tracking on his phone: Is the president in the ballroom yet? Has the president sat down yet? What time will dinner be served? This is clearly — the president is a target. And make no mistake, it is not just the manifesto, it is his actions."
3:17

US Attorney Jeanine Pirro on case against alleged press dinner gunman: "We have a lot of evidence that indicates his intent... whether it was, you know, following what the president was doing, where he was going, to the day of the of the event at the hotel. Tracking on his phone: Is the president in the ballroom yet? Has the president sat down yet? What time will dinner be served? This is clearly — the president is a target. And make no mistake, it is not just the manifesto, it is his actions."

State of the Union

109,539 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

OTD 28 years ago "The Strike" aired, and the world learned about "Festivus." We spoke with Dan O'Keefe whose father created Festivus. Dan was Not a fan of the episode, did Not want the episode to air, and to him, Festivus brings back deep rooted trauma. Dan explains: The way people adopted it, I didn’t see that coming. You gotta understand, I’ve been saying this for a while, yeah, that was my father, he was mentally ill and a drunk, but extremely brilliant. For whatever reason he invented this weird fucking extra holiday that was celebrated at random times. It did not have a set date. It was extremely upsetting. It was like borderline child endangerment, and it was not fun. So my brothers and I had this deal: you do not talk about it outside of the house, and we just try to pretend it’s not happening. But I didn’t pitch it, I didn’t want it to go in. I hoped it would fail and be edited out, and nevertheless, the damn thing survived. The reality is far weirder. I have the CDs that were remastered from the cassette tapes my dad used to make during the annual recording of this insanity, which is mostly him screaming about internal Reader’s Digest politics in a deep slur while my brothers are crying and my mom is telling him to simmer down. That was not something I agitated for, quite the reverse. So how do I feel about it taking off? I try to block it out. This holiday was basically an encapsulation of alcoholism and mental illness into one neat little wrapper. I was as surprised as anyone. I was not a booster of this. I was surprised it got on the air. I am beyond surprised that it seems to be something that has, to some extent, legs. There are still a few people who celebrate it. Good for them. I do not personally. I did my time on that in the ’70s and ’80s. Jerry Stiller made it fun. The real thing was terrifying, obviously, and you understood why George was not in favor of it. But he made it fun, and it was Jeff Schaffer’s joke—the idea to give it a pole. That was not the case. The real symbology of it was more peculiar and not as wholesome as an aluminum pole with a good strength-to-weight ratio.
0:33

OTD 28 years ago "The Strike" aired, and the world learned about "Festivus." We spoke with Dan O'Keefe whose father created Festivus. Dan was Not a fan of the episode, did Not want the episode to air, and to him, Festivus brings back deep rooted trauma. Dan explains: The way people adopted it, I didn’t see that coming. You gotta understand, I’ve been saying this for a while, yeah, that was my father, he was mentally ill and a drunk, but extremely brilliant. For whatever reason he invented this weird fucking extra holiday that was celebrated at random times. It did not have a set date. It was extremely upsetting. It was like borderline child endangerment, and it was not fun. So my brothers and I had this deal: you do not talk about it outside of the house, and we just try to pretend it’s not happening. But I didn’t pitch it, I didn’t want it to go in. I hoped it would fail and be edited out, and nevertheless, the damn thing survived. The reality is far weirder. I have the CDs that were remastered from the cassette tapes my dad used to make during the annual recording of this insanity, which is mostly him screaming about internal Reader’s Digest politics in a deep slur while my brothers are crying and my mom is telling him to simmer down. That was not something I agitated for, quite the reverse. So how do I feel about it taking off? I try to block it out. This holiday was basically an encapsulation of alcoholism and mental illness into one neat little wrapper. I was as surprised as anyone. I was not a booster of this. I was surprised it got on the air. I am beyond surprised that it seems to be something that has, to some extent, legs. There are still a few people who celebrate it. Good for them. I do not personally. I did my time on that in the ’70s and ’80s. Jerry Stiller made it fun. The real thing was terrifying, obviously, and you understood why George was not in favor of it. But he made it fun, and it was Jeff Schaffer’s joke—the idea to give it a pole. That was not the case. The real symbology of it was more peculiar and not as wholesome as an aluminum pole with a good strength-to-weight ratio.

This Podcast is Making Me Thirsty Seinfeld Podcast

103,005 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Honestly, nothing's stopping you from recreating the song if what you want is to make a remix I'm saying this as someone who did a remix of "I'm Real" from FNAF Was it tedious? Forks Was it worth it? Not because I hate the things I make But at least I'm not a thief lmao
0:52

Honestly, nothing's stopping you from recreating the song if what you want is to make a remix I'm saying this as someone who did a remix of "I'm Real" from FNAF Was it tedious? Forks Was it worth it? Not because I hate the things I make But at least I'm not a thief lmao

🆖️ S A N C O 🆖️

14,818 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

New video of what is a supposed UAP being struck by a Hellfire missile: Analysis What isn’t discussed at the hearing nor anyone who doesn’t have exposure to footage like this is the fact that the Hellfire missile doesn’t appear to detonate. This is important as it shows the missile only clipping the object, which most likely is a drone. If the missile doesn’t detonate and only clips one of the rotors of a drone (if that’s what this is), then it would explain why the drone could potentially recover and carry on…to a distance longer than the video shows but we don’t know how far that actually was. It could have eventually crashed in the water. Also, important to note that the authorization to use that munition signifies that the user was given a green light at targeting a potential threat. This isn’t done lightly. This means that it was identified enough to a degree to be a potential threat (like an adversarial drone) and was intentionally targeted. That wouldn’t happen if it was a truly unidentified objects or actual alien space ship. They would observe until it was deemed to be hostile in nature. This could also be a potential C-UAS test strike on the efficiencies of targeting in-flight drones with conventional munitions and how accurate they are. But more information needs to be presented to determine that. In conclusion, this appears to be nothing more than a failed strike of what was claimed to be a Hellfire missile on a traveling drone. The munition did not detonate, clipping the object but only to a degree that it still had flight capability after.
0:41

New video of what is a supposed UAP being struck by a Hellfire missile: Analysis What isn’t discussed at the hearing nor anyone who doesn’t have exposure to footage like this is the fact that the Hellfire missile doesn’t appear to detonate. This is important as it shows the missile only clipping the object, which most likely is a drone. If the missile doesn’t detonate and only clips one of the rotors of a drone (if that’s what this is), then it would explain why the drone could potentially recover and carry on…to a distance longer than the video shows but we don’t know how far that actually was. It could have eventually crashed in the water. Also, important to note that the authorization to use that munition signifies that the user was given a green light at targeting a potential threat. This isn’t done lightly. This means that it was identified enough to a degree to be a potential threat (like an adversarial drone) and was intentionally targeted. That wouldn’t happen if it was a truly unidentified objects or actual alien space ship. They would observe until it was deemed to be hostile in nature. This could also be a potential C-UAS test strike on the efficiencies of targeting in-flight drones with conventional munitions and how accurate they are. But more information needs to be presented to determine that. In conclusion, this appears to be nothing more than a failed strike of what was claimed to be a Hellfire missile on a traveling drone. The munition did not detonate, clipping the object but only to a degree that it still had flight capability after.

Chris Unleashed

288,753 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

🚨OMG BREAKING: The video of Frank Turek supposedly saying Charlie texted him the day before his murder fearing for his life, was DECEPTIVELY EDITED!! The original unedited video here shows Frank referring to a political violence incident that happened MONTHS before Charlie’s assassination. Frank is the one who initiated a text to Charlie asking him if he had increased his security… to which Charlie responded that he did increase his security because “they want me dead” So Charlie’s response was in response to violent incident that happened months before his death NOT the night before. The text exchange with Frank Turek was completely unrelated to Charlie’s assassination or the days leading up to it! The edited video makes it seem like Charlie texted Frank Turek the night before he was shot. This deceptively edited video looks to have been done to corroborate the conspiracy theory claims that Charlie feared for his life the night before he was killed. Erika had said this claim was false & this deceptively edited video has gone viral seeming to contradict Erika & expose her as a liar. Wow!! I will post the fake video below so you can compare
0:23

🚨OMG BREAKING: The video of Frank Turek supposedly saying Charlie texted him the day before his murder fearing for his life, was DECEPTIVELY EDITED!! The original unedited video here shows Frank referring to a political violence incident that happened MONTHS before Charlie’s assassination. Frank is the one who initiated a text to Charlie asking him if he had increased his security… to which Charlie responded that he did increase his security because “they want me dead” So Charlie’s response was in response to violent incident that happened months before his death NOT the night before. The text exchange with Frank Turek was completely unrelated to Charlie’s assassination or the days leading up to it! The edited video makes it seem like Charlie texted Frank Turek the night before he was shot. This deceptively edited video looks to have been done to corroborate the conspiracy theory claims that Charlie feared for his life the night before he was killed. Erika had said this claim was false & this deceptively edited video has gone viral seeming to contradict Erika & expose her as a liar. Wow!! I will post the fake video below so you can compare

Melissa Tate

360,570 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🔥Holy Smokes: Stephen Miller takes a smug, combative Kasie Hunt to the WOODSHED as she tries to “gotcha” on Trump using an autopen, ignoring the ACTUAL POINT: "This is the most important point. It's not just that Joe Biden used the auto pen - it's that he didn't know it. He was not briefed on it. He was not aware of it. He did not approve it. He was not mentally aware of what the government was doing." “Biden didn’t know what was being signed in his name." My goodness. And CNN wonders why their ratings are a raging dumpster fire.
1:43

🔥Holy Smokes: Stephen Miller takes a smug, combative Kasie Hunt to the WOODSHED as she tries to “gotcha” on Trump using an autopen, ignoring the ACTUAL POINT: "This is the most important point. It's not just that Joe Biden used the auto pen - it's that he didn't know it. He was not briefed on it. He was not aware of it. He did not approve it. He was not mentally aware of what the government was doing." “Biden didn’t know what was being signed in his name." My goodness. And CNN wonders why their ratings are a raging dumpster fire.

Western Lensman

800,780 просмотров • 1 год назад

Asmongold on why he hasn't commented much on Denims’ lawsuit and why he hopes she loses "I hope she doesn't win..I didn't really talk about that bc I don't know what the ramifications are..and the only ppl posting about it were the usual glazer accounts so I'm like ok is this legitimate or not..but I think that she should lose" "If u upload somebody else's content with the express and stated goal of trying to deprive that person from revenue, I think that just that on its own..should be grounds for it not to be fair use..fair use is explicitly not being a market alternative and if she is stating that it is a market alternative, then I don't know how anybody could say that's fair use" "That's not a win for anybody if she wins that case..at that point, it says that effectively u can react to and upload another YT video, say that ur doing it to take views away from the creator..fundamentally it was malicious, what she did” “So no I don't want to see somebody win and get off free for something that they literally admitted was malicious..idk why anybody's thinking that's a good thing"
1:30

Asmongold on why he hasn't commented much on Denims’ lawsuit and why he hopes she loses "I hope she doesn't win..I didn't really talk about that bc I don't know what the ramifications are..and the only ppl posting about it were the usual glazer accounts so I'm like ok is this legitimate or not..but I think that she should lose" "If u upload somebody else's content with the express and stated goal of trying to deprive that person from revenue, I think that just that on its own..should be grounds for it not to be fair use..fair use is explicitly not being a market alternative and if she is stating that it is a market alternative, then I don't know how anybody could say that's fair use" "That's not a win for anybody if she wins that case..at that point, it says that effectively u can react to and upload another YT video, say that ur doing it to take views away from the creator..fundamentally it was malicious, what she did” “So no I don't want to see somebody win and get off free for something that they literally admitted was malicious..idk why anybody's thinking that's a good thing"

yeet

54,173 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

She was obsessed with Chike. That was the reason the malice started — after Frank had warned both of them. She promised she wouldn’t do it again, but she was caught a second time. That’s why Frank decided to keep to herself. Go and hear it from her own mouth — she even said her husband is not at fault, but she is.
10:00

She was obsessed with Chike. That was the reason the malice started — after Frank had warned both of them. She promised she wouldn’t do it again, but she was caught a second time. That’s why Frank decided to keep to herself. Go and hear it from her own mouth — she even said her husband is not at fault, but she is.

Susan Abel

148,090 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Back then, even when Gumayusi wasn't the starting player, it was his choice to go at the venue or not but he still chose to go because he thought it was important to be with the team and watch the matches. Q: It seems like it was tough when you were subbed out of the starting line up. Could you talk a bit more specifically about how you got through that period? Gumayusi: Usually, people say they “overcame” tough times, but lately my thinking has changed. I think that hardships aren't something you overcome, but they're something you endure. Q: On him going to the venue despite not being on the starting lineup back then Gumayusi: Actually, it was my choice whether to go or not. At first, it hurt, so I thought I didn’t want to go. But I realized that instead of thinking/dwelling on the situation negatively and doing nothing, it was more important to go there, be with the team and watch the matches. In the end, I think it was good that I went.
0:47

Back then, even when Gumayusi wasn't the starting player, it was his choice to go at the venue or not but he still chose to go because he thought it was important to be with the team and watch the matches. Q: It seems like it was tough when you were subbed out of the starting line up. Could you talk a bit more specifically about how you got through that period? Gumayusi: Usually, people say they “overcame” tough times, but lately my thinking has changed. I think that hardships aren't something you overcome, but they're something you endure. Q: On him going to the venue despite not being on the starting lineup back then Gumayusi: Actually, it was my choice whether to go or not. At first, it hurt, so I thought I didn’t want to go. But I realized that instead of thinking/dwelling on the situation negatively and doing nothing, it was more important to go there, be with the team and watch the matches. In the end, I think it was good that I went.

ye?

41,355 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🚨 WOMAN WAS RESCUING SEAGULL, NOT STEALING IT A video I shared yesterday of a woman catching a seagull in a blanket, was Not what it looked like, the woman in question was actually concerned for the small seagull after it has fell off the roof previously, as you can see in this video that the woman in question shares with the seagull society on Facebook, she asked locals to help her it on to a flat roof so it could be back with its mother Like many people yesterday I saw the video shared round of her catching it and jumped to conclusions, for that I apologize and hold my hands up I was quick to judge
1:16

🚨 WOMAN WAS RESCUING SEAGULL, NOT STEALING IT A video I shared yesterday of a woman catching a seagull in a blanket, was Not what it looked like, the woman in question was actually concerned for the small seagull after it has fell off the roof previously, as you can see in this video that the woman in question shares with the seagull society on Facebook, she asked locals to help her it on to a flat roof so it could be back with its mother Like many people yesterday I saw the video shared round of her catching it and jumped to conclusions, for that I apologize and hold my hands up I was quick to judge

Active Patriot

1,019,768 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Ethan Klein accepts iDubbbz's apology, believes it to be genuine "Ian put out this video on his main channel which immediately i thought was very good that he was willing to stand on it on his main channel, a nice gesture..I thought his apology was genuine..working with my attorneys to drop the lawsuit" "I was being genuine with Noah Samsen too..maybe we can come to an agreement" "I actually don't care about any of the stuff he's saying right now..not why I'm suing him, he's free to say that stuff..problem I had was the statement about my kids which is the one he's apologizing for..he's allowed to say he thinks I'm a bully, harassing ppl..that's fine if that's all he ever said..I'm not offended at all he included it in the video" "He's not retracting or switching up 180..he's just saying this went too far..that was my point as well" "I appreciate what he's saying here..feels like a nice genuine apology..btw we did not discuss this at all between our lawyers or each other..he made it on his volition" "I think Ian has a conscious u know..once the buzz..of being cheerleaded by all these really sick bad faith ppl online..post snark clarity..and I think he kind of realized over time that wasn't the right thing to do and I appreciate it..I've made mistakes too..that's all I wanted"
6:10

Ethan Klein accepts iDubbbz's apology, believes it to be genuine "Ian put out this video on his main channel which immediately i thought was very good that he was willing to stand on it on his main channel, a nice gesture..I thought his apology was genuine..working with my attorneys to drop the lawsuit" "I was being genuine with Noah Samsen too..maybe we can come to an agreement" "I actually don't care about any of the stuff he's saying right now..not why I'm suing him, he's free to say that stuff..problem I had was the statement about my kids which is the one he's apologizing for..he's allowed to say he thinks I'm a bully, harassing ppl..that's fine if that's all he ever said..I'm not offended at all he included it in the video" "He's not retracting or switching up 180..he's just saying this went too far..that was my point as well" "I appreciate what he's saying here..feels like a nice genuine apology..btw we did not discuss this at all between our lawyers or each other..he made it on his volition" "I think Ian has a conscious u know..once the buzz..of being cheerleaded by all these really sick bad faith ppl online..post snark clarity..and I think he kind of realized over time that wasn't the right thing to do and I appreciate it..I've made mistakes too..that's all I wanted"

yeet

139,579 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Lana Rhodes admits that she is not a sexual person and her time in the industry was short and negative "One thing that contributed to me having such a short time in it and also majority of my experiences being negative was the part that I'm just not a very sexual person" "It's extremely not my personality at all" "If I'm not doing it in real life, why should I think that I should be paid to do it, I guess?" "...and force myself to do things that I wouldn't usually do, is what I'm trying to say"
0:34

Sensitive content

Lana Rhodes admits that she is not a sexual person and her time in the industry was short and negative "One thing that contributed to me having such a short time in it and also majority of my experiences being negative was the part that I'm just not a very sexual person" "It's extremely not my personality at all" "If I'm not doing it in real life, why should I think that I should be paid to do it, I guess?" "...and force myself to do things that I wouldn't usually do, is what I'm trying to say"

Rixlerr

10,965,157 просмотров • 25 дней назад